Proceeding contribution from Austin Mitchell (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 17 June 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Business Rate Supplements Bill.
Business Rate Supplements Bill
This is the same standard argument that has been given to us during our lengthy discussions on the Bill—that there is no possibility of not giving retrospective assessment because everybody else would want it and it would break a fundamental principle. However, regulation 14(6) of the Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2005 provides that where reassessment is the responsibility of the Valuation Office Agency, not the result of a mistake or a fiddle on the part of the hereditament owner, there is no need for a retrospective revaluation. If that principle had been adopted under the Bill, as it should have been, we could have avoided all this trouble. What my hon. Friend is saying is wrong in respect of assessments such as those in the ports, which were done as the responsibility of the VOA, not the hereditament owner.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 494 c362
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Local government Business rates Surcharges
- Legislation
- Business Rate Supplements Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:12:18 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568037
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568037
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_568037